MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2064749097 · doi:10.3109/14992027.2014.906752

An investigation into the clinical utility of ipsilateral/ contralateral asymmetries in bone-conduction auditory steady-state responses

2014· article· en· W2064749097 on OpenAlexafffund
Susan A. Small, Alison Love

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Audiology · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicHearing, Cochlea, Tinnitus, Genetics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsAudiologyMedicineBone conductionMasking (illustration)Steady state (chemistry)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether ipsilateral/contralateral asymmetries in the bone-conduction (BC) ASSR are robust enough in infants to be used clinically to isolate the test ear. DESIGN: Retrospective investigation of three two-channel BC ASSR datasets. SUBJECTS: Forty-eight adults (mean age 26.7 years), 49 infants (mean age 29.6 weeks). METHODS: BC ASSR stimuli were presented as amplitude/frequency modulated sinusoidal tones with carrier frequencies of 500, 1000, 2000, and 4000 Hz (-10 to 45 dB HL). RESULTS: Infants showed greater differences in ipsilateral/contralateral mean amplitudes and phase delays for all experimental conditions compared to adults. Ninety percent of infants had ipsilateral/contralateral asymmetries at 500 and 4000 Hz (20-35 dB HL) using an "amplitude or phase delay" criterion, and at 4000 Hz (20-25 dB HL) using an "amplitude and phase delay" criterion. CONCLUSIONS: As ipsilateral/contralateral asymmetries are not consistently present for 1000- and 2000-Hz BC ASSRs in infants, clinical masking would be needed at these frequencies to isolate the test ear. For 500- and 4000-Hz BC ASSRs, the accuracy of using these asymmetries requires clinical confirmation in a group of infants with hearing loss.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.230
Threshold uncertainty score0.679

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.067
GPT teacher head0.376
Teacher spread0.309 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of AudiologySame topicHearing, Cochlea, Tinnitus, GeneticsFrench-language works237,207